Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

adeelarshad82 writes "Nearly three and a half years later, Apple has finally been awarded the U.S. patent number 7,966,578, which according to the patent experts should worry rivals. According to exclusive interviews with patent experts, the incredibly broad patent puts Apple in a strong position when it comes to displaying content and using certain finger gestures on smart phones. The patent is so broad that not only will Apple's legal team target iPhone competitors but will also look to go after iPad and iPod rivals. Experts also discussed the scenario of Apple licensing its patented technology or for that matter, the courts completely scrapping the patent in public's interest."

Next thing you know, Microsoft will try to patent "waving" as it is used on the Kinect, and anyone who builds a motion detection gadget or system will have to have a license for "waving" issued from them.

I am no fan of software patents, but given the reality that we are living in, I think you are over simplifying quite a bit. A Microsoft patent for detecting and responding to waving wouldn't simply state "if the user waves, do XXX". Rather, the patent would cover a method for detecting that the user had waved, and then initiating the proper system response.

If detecting a wave is so obvious, could someone please reply with the process that would be used to detect a wave? Please include how you detect t

Apparently different divisions of the USPTO have completely different thresholds for obviousness. I have a very hard time beliving that it wouldn't be obvious to people having ordianry skill in the art to come up with the same ideas. Especially in light of other existing patents.Very poor work by the USPTO!!!

There were Pocket PCs sold around 2001 running Windows CE that had a phone. These were slow but still usable,

IIRC, they had styluses. That makes them not usable. A phone that you need a pen to use? Are you shitting me? Or how about those shitty Crackberries that you had to use a miniature trackball to move a cursor around the screen? MS and RIM: two vendors that just couldn't conceive of a UI that wasn't related to a standard Windows PC.

If companies like Nokia can hold broad patents and require Apple to pay them $10 for every iPhone in licensing fees. Apple should be allowed to do the same to Nokia. The patent system has upheld these broad patents time and time again. If you want to do something in the publics interest, the entire patent system should be reformed.

Broad patents? Nokia holds some very specific patents related to the GSM communication hardware/software technology unlike Apple patenting a mechanism that has been around for ages. Example from 1991 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8lCetZ_57g [youtube.com]

Someone explain to me, seriously, how the fuck is this kind of patent even granted? You can patent the very idea of allowing multipe touches on a touchscreen, no matter how it is implemented? Isn't that like patenting the idea of rolling to your destination, no matter if you do it by chariot, train, car, etc?

You could patent the wheel, and the axle and you'd be there. Obviously, there's enough prior art that you couldn't do it, but if you were to be awarded that patent you would indeed get money for all those modes of transportation.

But Apple's patent wouldn't be like patenting the wheel -- it would be even worse. It would prevent you from having any remotely-circle-like shape that rolls (say, a decagon).

That seems to be the pattern with all the worst patents: they claim an *end* rather than a means. Patents are supposed to protect the inventor of a *way* of doing something (such as a *way* of accomplishing multitouch, or of buying a product with one click), and yet they're being used to cover _anything_ that accomplishes some end goal whatsoever!

That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.

It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.

Almost any patent is "obvious" in retrospect. Even a mouse trap or a light bulb has people saying, "what? each part involved is *obvious*!" What about Polaroid? It's *obvious* that if you want instant film, you'll need to combine chemicals in a certain order, with delayed reactions that will bring out, in the end, a properly developed photograph. But the *specific* chemicals and mechanism to get them to work in the right way? *THAT'S*

It's because the Patent office is completely understaffed and underfunded. If they had more funding, they could afford to hire decent people from industry, even if only on a contract basis, and many of these patents wouldn't hold up, because most people in industry would say that's not a new invention.

Experts also discussed the scenario of Apple licensing its patented technology or for that matter, the courts completely scrapping the patent in public's interest.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. The problem isn't so much specifically that Apple applied for (and got) this patent. It's that the patent system itself is out of control and stupid, and encourages companies to apply for overly broad patents.

I'm sure if Microsoft had a product in the works at that time, they'd have applied for this patent -- same goes for IBM, Google, or pretty much anybody.

If the courts are going to start scrapping individual patents in the public interest, they should do this for a very broad set of patents which do nothing but patent something which lots of people independently came up with.

Overhaul the patent system or fix the damned patent office... but don't cherry pick which patents we figure should be over-turned so other companies can come out with products as well. Because there's a lot of patents which are just as fundamentally blocking to developing products as this multi-touch one.

I personally hate gun makers for lobbing in a broken system to keep guns legal and to keep regulations at a minimum so they can sell as much as they can, but if I get shot in the leg by some person on the street, depending on the situation I think I'm well within my moral rights to hate the person holding the gun, no matter who gave it to them.

The patent system lost its way when it had to pay for itself instead of getting money from a general fund.Once again, the republicans trying to push there flawed 'free market' approach to everything fails.

Wait, really? Got a source for that? Because requiring a government office to sustain itself, especially one with such a limited appeal but that requires expertise in just about every realm of science, technology and engineering, is beyond foolish.

The could play the game differently. They could push for a more rational system.

Yes, they could push for that, and they quite possibly do.

But when we see stories that say that Oracle figures Google owes them 6.1 billion dollars [slashdot.org], then you'd have to be an idiot to think that Apple would be able to simply not patent this stuff and sing kumbaya and pass out flowers. If someone patented this very thing, a

No, they really couldn't. It's basically the Prisoner's dilemma. If all agree to stop playing and reform, then things would work out better for everyone. However, because they are run by humans, that won't happen, because if even one company keeps playing, then all are fucked. And if only one stops playing, then that company is royally fucked.

The main problem with these broad patents aren't so much that they hurt other big players, but it completely eliminates anyone else from entering the marketplace. Completely artificial barriers to the market place means that only the big players can make a profit. There can be a electronics designer who enters the marketplace with a new cool idea (like lets say infra red sensors for a cell phone and a 3d display so you can interact with it 3d by pressing virtual buttons) without them violating 300 extreme

This is one of the few widely-publicized patents in recent memory that I think is probably justified.

It's hard to remember back to before the iPhone existed, but devices like it weren't even on the radar of any major phone manufacturer until after Steve Jobs' announcement. Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining [everythingisaremix.info] those technologies in completely unexpected ways. The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept. This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.

'Apple's patent essentially gives it ownership of the capacitive multitouch interface the company pioneered with its iPhone'.

Well, ok then. Isn't that what patents are all about ? This is the system *working* as designed. You can argue that the system itself is broken, but this seems to be exactly how it ought to be, within our current frame of reference. Apple designed a totally new and radical way of interacting with phones, and patented it. Sounds... reasonable.

I'm all for hating Apple for their methods of controlling the consumer experience, controlling the device the consumer purchases, and controlling the content the consumer is allowed to put on their device. However, as much as it pains me to say it, Apple actually deserves this patent. They did spark a whole industry and we're all better because of it.

I just don't want them to stomp on the rest of the industry with this patent, which they will do.

THe iphone was absolutely obvious and deriviative. The problem is all the phones that came before didnt have the full ecosystem to back it up. The iphone by itself is a an ok phone for the most part. its the software and ecosystem behind it that really drives the device. And Apple benefited greatly from seeing others mistakes and missteps too. The street goes both ways.

What about companies that manufacture these touchscreen devices? Aren't they the ones who should be holding the relevant patents? Why is it that apple has the power to artificially limit the touchscreen manufacturer's market just over "use cases" ??

Touch screens have been in use for a very long** time in military applications. Nothing the PlayBook, iPad, Windows or Android tablets do of the gestures they use is new or unique. In a commercial space, maybe, in general no.

The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept.

You obviously missed the TED talk (from before Apple filed for the multitouch patent) where a researcher demonstrated a multi-touch interface. If you had seen that talk, you'd know that the iPhone is both obvious and derivative.

If anything, Apple et al should be paying that researcher millions of dollars for resear

Sorry, but allowing Apple the ability to stifle competition by suing anyone who makes a rival product, which would end the potential for anything BETTER being created, is not only stupid but backwards thinking of the worst kind. We should encourage competition and rival products, not award companies who are the first through the gate with a free pass to take companies who want to compete to court. If you think that is what patents are for, then you should not be commenting on the patent system.

Well put. The upside to the patent system is that innovation can be rewarded better than simple mimicry. Most of the post iphone devices ARE clearly derivative... just as all keyboards are substantially similar.

Obviously, whoever invents the first one does deserve to benefit from it.

Perhaps Nokia and Microsoft will skip the legal posturing and just balance the $10/device "tax" Apple now pays to Nokia and balance will be restored to the Force.

A full screen multi touch iPod was the number 1 rumor for years before the iPhone came out. Putting a GSM radio in it doesn't make it completely unexpected. Further, multitouch devices have been around for decades, including the associated (and obvious) gestures. See http://billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html [billbuxton.com]

You do realize there's a giant fucking chasm between merely theorizing about a device and actually building it, right? The Jetsons had flying cars decades ago. Does that make the guy who figures out how to make it practical and widespread any less deserving of a patent?

True, but this is not a patent for multi touch technology; this is a patent for multi touch gestures. "An N-finger translation gesture is detected on or near the touch screen display. In response, the page content, including the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the page, is translated to display a new portion of page content on the touch screen display." In other words, touch and drag. People do this with a mouse, and it's intuitively obvious to they layman how the finger can be used instead.

Apple's own Newton combined most of the same features into such a device years before.

If you need a GSM example, the Palm offerings come to mind.

The IPhone's unique feature was eliminating nearly all input aside from the screen. Mind you they did that on the Newton as well.

The Newton supported gestures, by the way. Some of my fav's were in text editing: stroke upward over a letter to capitalize it. Stroke across the screen below your text to create a new entry. zig-zag over a word to erase it.

The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept.

I disagree with great fervor. Smartphones were clearly the next step in the evolution of mobile phones. I'm not sure if you're aware, but there were smartphones before Apple made one. They benefited greatly from everything that came before them.

This is one of the few widely-publicized patents in recent memory that I think is probably justified.

It's hard to remember back to before the iPhone existed, but devices like it weren't even on the radar of any major phone manufacturer until after Steve Jobs' announcement. Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining [everythingisaremix.info] those technologies in completely unexpected ways. The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept. This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.

When it comes to multitouch, Apple didn't invent shit! Apple was just one of the first companies to use the multitouch technology developed by a German company called Balda AG. The only thing Apple did was create software that took advantage of the one intended purpose of Balda AG's technology. If this patent is as broad as the summary makes it out to be, then Apple's patent may cover almost any use of Balda AG's multitouch technology. That would mean that all of Balda AG's customers, and possibly customers of any other type of multitouch technology, could be at risk of violating Apple's broad patent.

Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining those technologies in completely unexpected ways.

If Apple had to create some new technologies in order to integrate this multitouch screen, then those specific technologies would be worthy of patents. However, the only thing Apple did was place the screen in the iPhone and write software that made use of its one intended purpose - multitouch. How can anyone argue that using a technology for its one intended purpose is worthy of a patent?

The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept

Please explain what new technology Apple invented for the iPhone. I frequently hear claims such as yours, but no one can seem to provide specific technical details of why the iPhone was not derivative. Yes, it revolutionized the smartphone market, but it was far from a technological revolution. The best technological components of the phone were the multitouch capability (we already established that technology was not invented by Apple) and its nice glass screen surface (thought to be made possible also by Balda AG's touchscreen technology).

This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.

Not even close! That is unless you can provide specific details of new technology that Apple invented in the iPhone. Otherwise, the iPhone was simply an integration of other company's technologies with a nice software interface. Yes, it was extremely popular, spurred incredible interest in the smartphone market, and is worthy of all of its success, but patents are not granted based on the results of popularity contests.

My thoughts exactly! In fact, I had assumed that Apple licensed the multi-touch interface from Han, since his TED talk preceded the iPhone's release by half a year or more. How the HELL could the patent office have missed that?

Not that I'm supporting this patent, but it could be possible that Apple has documented evidence of working on this patent well prior to any of Han's evidence. I'm not a patent lawyer, but it's my understanding that the patent award isn't solely based on the filing date, but rather the "date of the invention". So if you invented something in 2001 and filed in 2007, someone who talks about it in 2006 isn't creating prior art.

My understanding is that the filing date can be many years after the invention

You wouldn't; that'd be stupid. However, there generally is some delay between when you actually invent the thing, when you file the patent, and when the patent is grant. Lawyers need time to write the application, patent clerks need time to review it. 6 years probably wouldn't happen, but one or two might.

On the other hand, some of your researchers might have created something in 2001, but the company didn't think it was worth the time and money to patent it. Then a few years later, the winds of tech start

Because talking about something in public first, does not mean that you were the first to work on it.

Apple probably has prior art that preceedes the TED talk that just wasn't public (they are infamous for their secrecy after all). I haven't looked at the patent in question, but if Apple had evidence that they were working on this prior to the TED talk in 2006, and Han didn't already have his own patent application in to the patent office, then the patent office missed nothing.

A few things to note that in the broadest reading of the patent, it applies to portable devices. Second is while Han had probably been working on multi-touch for years and first demonstrated it in 2006, Apple acquired FingerWorks in 2005 specifically for multi-touch products and technology.

I'm pretty sure that Perceptive Pixels/Jeff's patents are for their hardware treatment...you know..something actually appropriate to patent. I work with their machines quite a lot and the magic is mostly in the hardware as I understand it. They do play their cards close to their chest though so one can never be sure.

Actually, they don't. A perusal of the Apple Litigation [wikipedia.org] page on wikipedia gives the impression that they are the recipient of as many lawsuits as they file. Now I'm sure this isn't an exhaustive list, but remember Apple is not a Patent Troll. They actually release products based on the patents they get into lawsuits over. Competitors can license their patents or come up with a novel way to achieve the same end. Remember, patents are not for "what you do", but "How you do it". I doubt that Apple has ju

Since the beginning of touch sensitive technologies, people have been putting more than one finger on the surface for a very long time. And while it didn't work, users were WISHING it worked because those clumbsy mistakes can be annoying. Wishing for multi-touch does not make for "prior art" but I think it qualifies as "obvious."

These are the first two claims which actually describe the covered material.

1. A method, comprising: at a portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display; displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display, wherein the portion of web page content includes: a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content; detecting

Touch screens were around well before the iPhone/iPad came along. I was dragging files around on a Sony tablet well before people had even dreamt of an iPhone. Multi-touch wasn't implemented only because touchscreen technology of the time wasn't capable of it. Hell, Minority Report depicted multitouch 5 years before the first iPhone. I'm sure others have had the idea well before then.

In light of this, how can Apple's patent be deemed anything but obvious?

Multi touch interfaces have been around for quite a while. Hell, I made a 4 inputs custom driver for windows XP in 2003 (that`s all I could manage from the free samples I had ordered, but it could have scaled upward if I had wanted to) and implanted some generic gesture recognition.

So, a device which detect a gesture to change a page on a portable device is a limited implementation of what I was able to do with my implementation. But then, I built that from previous research which had gone much further alre

Multi touch interfaces have been around for quite a while. Hell, I made a 4 inputs custom driver for windows XP in 2003 (that`s all I could manage from the free samples I had ordered, but it could have scaled upward if I had wanted to) and implanted some generic gesture recognition.

Great. Did you publish it? If you published it, is it actual prior art?

Um this is for multi-touch which is relatively new compared to touch. While practical touch screens have been around for decades, inventors have only been able to get multi-touch working reliably in a handheld device in the last few years.

I read this patent and did I discover a really new thing ? No. We can imagine all sorts of patents of this kind. Furthermore touch screens exist for a long time, so the methods to use a touch screen should not be patented. I agree than some very new types of touch screens may be patented, but only the touch screens themselves and the technologies used to build them, but no more, and limiting the patents only to a very narrow field.

Software patents should not be issued.

Keep in mind that when Apple filed for this patent, they were still smarting from Creative Labs suing them [dailytech.com] for having the audacity (no pun) to organize the iPod's data into Artists, Albums and Songs (which was, IMHO the absolute embodiment of an "obvious invention), and there was someone else that sued them for the "click wheel" [ilounge.com].

I remember when Jobs did the Keynote introducing the iPhone. He went through the various gestures, said "We worked long and hard on this interface, and boy have we patented the he

All the smug for a low-low price! You realize this is something you bought, not created. Buying a thing does not make you a better person in any particular way. If you believe it does, you now have some idea why the "anti-apple-fanboi" group are so annoyed with you.